It seems like extreme gullibility must be a job requirement for reporters at Channel Nine. You might recall how Adam Shand uncritically accepted everything he was told by global warming skeptics and aggressively disputed the mainstream science. Tara Brown has gone down the same path on Channel Nine's 60 minutes.
TARA BROWN: No doubt the ice is melting, but the big question is - are we to blame? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change reports it is 90% certain we are. But other equally eminent scientists believe what were seeing is just part of Nature's great cycle.
DAVID EVANS: Now since 1990, western governments have spent about $50 billion looking for evidence that carbon causes global warming and they haven't found any.
David Evans has no training in climate science (he's an electrical engineer) and has no scientific publications in climate science. His only professional experience in the area is writing a carbon accounting program for the Australian Greenhouse Office. But Brown claims that Evans is "equally eminent scientist" to those in the IPCC. And Evans is well aware that they have found plenty of evidence that the warming is anthropogenic, he just refuses to count it.
It gets worse.
TARA BROWN: Global Warming certainly attracts lots of argy-bargy. But one thing climate scientists agree on - if global warming is caused by CO-2 emissions then the CO-2 will leave a distinct signature their computer models predict a big red hotspot above the equator. The problem is thousands of weather balloons equipped with some very sophisticated thermometers have measured the temperatures in the atmosphere to test the theory, and guess what, no hotspots.
Brown is just parroting something that Evans told her here. If she had bothered to find out what climate scientists agree on, it's that the hot spot is not the signature of CO2-induced warming. But I guess that five minutes with Google would have been too much work for her.
DAVID EVANS: There's no hotspot, there's no hotspot at all. It's not even a little hotspot and it's missing. We couldn't find it.
TARA BROWN: So, this is the crux for you, this is evidence?
DAVID EVANS: Yes. If this had come out the other way, if we'd measured it and we'd found a hotspot I'd be saying, "Cut back carbon emissions."
I very much doubt this. When David Appell showed him that the signature of AGW had been found, Evans did not respond with "Cut back carbon emissions", but "the model could just be lucky".
And while Brown blindly accepts everything Evans says, she's
PM KEVIN RUDD: Here's a measurement which people should just sit back and pay a bit of attention to - the 12 hottest years in human history have occurred in the last 13 years. That's a fact.
TARA BROWN: It's not my position to correct you Prime Minister but I've been told that in fact during the middle ages the global temperatures were two to three degrees warmer than now. Certainly we've had the hottest 12 years in recent history but the planet's been a lot hotter.
Well, I'm sure Brown has been told that, but did she check to see if there was any support at all for it in the scientific literature? If we, unlike Brown, look at the research summarized by the IPCC we can find, in chapter 6, this graph showing published reconstructions. There are differences between the reconstructions, but all of them show that current temperatures are warmer that in the middle ages.
You can contact 60 minutes here.
but I've been told that in fact during the middle ages the global temperatures were two to three degrees warmer than now.
what weird type of source is "i have been told"???
i have NEVER EVER seen any source claiming that MWP was 3°C warmer than the last decade.
it is pretty obvious that they don t understand what 3°C higher global temperature actually means...
So you like spaghetti, Tim?
Are "independent" reconstructions really independent when they use the same unpublished data of which the authors choose to "forget" updated versions?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=34
Here is a scorecard:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
And here is the story how the hockeystick was rescued in IPCC AR4
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-p…
I like spaghetti. Kind of an odd question, but I don't mind answering it. Also, independent reconstructions are indeed independent even if they use some (or all) of the same data. It's the construction part that's being redone, isn't it? It sounds like you think all construction workers work for the same company if they all buy and use the same materials. It's simply not true and you'd have to be rather a nut to even consider it.
Is "argy-bargy" a technical term?
It is pretty clear climate sensitivity has been exaggerated
That paper does not seem to have received much attention from either the alarmist or sceptic camp, but the analysis is pretty definitive: the climate sensitivity is probably about 1/3 of what the IPCC is claiming.
[BTW, I regard ad-hominem attacks on authors as utter admission of defeat, so don't bother. If you disagree with the paper's conclusions, explain where the reasoning is wrong]
Hans' hopes of Errendipity fail upon realizing the script he is using has long ago been refuted and laid to rest.
In fact, it has been resting so long that it has moldered, turned into organic matter in the soil, been turned over by the plow, and corn for ethanol has been planted there. It is likely that we could be doing our Christmas shopping using gasoline containing the ethanol from Hans' script.
Who says denialists' words have no power to move us?
Best,
D
Just a note, that link to 60 minutes doesnt work.
Mugwump, Energy and Environment is a dumping ground for papers that don't meet the bar for publication in real science journals.
If you spend a bit of time in google I'm sure you'll find plenty of qualified responses to Lindzen's paper. One problem with grossly lower sensitivity claims is that no one can make them work with our knowledge of paleoclimate...
Hans Erren, why do you NOT simply tell us, what during what years the global temperature was 2-3 °C higher than it was in the last decade?
Sorry dhogaza, that's ad-hom. Attack the arguments in his paper.
Actually, quite the opposite. Very few specific responses to Lindzen's paper and on the general question of upper tropospheric warming there's just the usual realclimate non-argument "the model uncertainty is so great it encompasses all observations" (these guys don't seem to understand that predicting nothing with any certainty is not actually a virtue).
Stefan Rahmstorf has explained very thoroughly and clearly why and how Richard Lindzen is mistaken about low climate sensitivity.
No, it's not, on two counts:
1. E&E ain't a "hom" (you do know what "ad hom" refers to, I hope?)
2. It's a true statement. E&E exists to publish denialist "literature" whose flaws would be exposed if submitted to a real science journal, if not during peer review then in the commentary following publication.
That paper by Rahmstorf does not even refer to the Lindzen paper I cited.
dhogaza, address Lindzen's arguments. If not, I'll assume you cannot.
No, it only refers to Lindzen's argument, without citing the paper specifically.
So what?
mugwump, please desist from your attempts to hijack this thread. If you want to discuss Lindzen, take it to the Open thread.
Lindzen's arguments are little more than opinion piece.
Where are the hypotheses? Where are they tested? Where are the r^2 for their tests? Where is the T-test? On what model were they tested?
The E&E piece is little better than saying:
"The moon is made of green cheese".
"It is?! Show me where it is so!"
"Well, golly, these men over here says it is rock, but look how messy their papers are! Therefore, green cheese!"
"Yes, but where is your evidence? Let me see the cheese!"
"But, these men over there! Look, over there! say it is rock, but I say it is green cheese!
"Yes, but where is your evidence? Let me see this green cheese. Where are the lab results?!"
"Well, golly, these men over here says it is rock, but look how messy their papers are! Therefore, green cheese!"
And in the very journal where the IR iris was submitted were the responses showing why this particular idea is a non-starter.
My, my, my. The credulosity and gullibleness of those who need to believe. Do these people have responsibilities in society, or do they restock shelves at night for a living (not that there's anything wrong with that)?
Best,
D
OK, folks Down Under:
It's all well and good to whack Tara Brown here, (or try to hijack the thread away from the topic), but as some of you know, I have this thing about taking proactive, constructive, long-term actions to improve reporting.".
SO, for those of you with local knowledge, unlike me:
1) Is it that Channel 9 is hopeless?
In general? Or is there anyone within who can be reasoned with?
If not them, are there advertisers with whom one can discuss why it might be a bad idea to advertise there? Has anyone thought to compile a list of advertisers who essentially support nonsense, whether they know it or not? Are there any who would be embarrassed? TV stations do actually care what their advertisers think.
2) Is it that Tara is hopeless?
If not, can people suggest plausible, positive actions to help her and other reporters get better educated? And then try to execute some?
Why bother. They haven't been reviewed by genuine climate scientists. For all any non-expert knows, it could be just a pile of garbage and a complete waste of time. How do we know reading it is not just a waste of time?
Mugwump,
I've read your paper and posted some comments in the open thread.
I'm not sure about the origins of the 3oC claims but I know that CO2science have made such claims persistently despite making many of the same errors of the Loehle reconstruction, which also claims anomalous warmth during the MWP.
Umm, this is not hijacking - we're talking about the missing upper tropospheric hotspot, raised by you Tim as an attempt to show David Evans' ignorance. But I get the message loud and clear: once again none of the alarmists can actually show where Lindzen is wrong. Until you actually address the arguments and not the man (either direct ad hom attacks or indirect ad hom attacks by attacking the publication venue), you're going to keep losing the debate.
dhogza, Rahmstorf's paper doesn't address Lindzen's argument in the paper I cited, which is about the discrepancy between upper tropospheric warming and surface warming (the missing "hotspot"). [there are a lot of other things wrong with Rahmstorf's paper, but since it is not addressing the arguments raised in the specific Lindzen paper I cited, we don't need to go into them]
Dano, the bulk of Lindzen's paper has nothing to do with the IR iris. Again, please just read it and respond with specificity as to where his argument falls down. Open thread is fine by me.
mugwump:
You're not getting the point. Even if that hotspot really were missing, all it would show is that there is some missing evidence for global warming. That would not contradict the fact that there is tons of other evidence for global warming. The hotspot does not distinguish between different causes of warming, so it is not a signature of CO2.
BTW, you must think we have nothing better to do than to waste our time reading non-scientist-reviewed papers. Why do you think we would be interested in doing that?
Lindzen, like Evans, is wrong in claiming that the tropospheric hotspot is a "fingerprint" for GHG-induced warming.
His argument, if anything, would boil down to observed warming isn't really happening.
Or models are wrong regardless of what is driving the warming.
How this proves that CO2 sensitivity is 3x lower than estimated is beyond me, since there's also data from paleoclimatology, etc, that supports the consensus view.
Yeah, we're losing it badly. Now 100% of the major scientific organizations in the world endorse the results of mainstream climate science, while five years ago it was 95% or so. Our asses have been kicked.
Chris, dhogaza - this has been designated off-topic by our host so I am continuing the discussion with Paul H over on the Open Thread. But please, I don't want to get involved in meta discussions - I am interested only in the merits of Lindzen's arguments in the paper I cited.
Who watches 38 minutes?
Dano, is there any improvement on the models ?
nice neologism btw: "Errendipity"
Tim:
Isn't even that, also, a chart of Northern Hemisphere reconstructions only? {Hence the "(b) NH temperature reconstructions"}
And if so, doesn't that make this faux journalist even dumber, if possible? Because global means global. Global mean temp reconstructions are hard put to come up with a Medieval Warming Period at all, unless you want to stretch your definitions of medieval, warming, and period.
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age Myths
Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
Tim, you may need to relegate Mugwump to the Tilo Rieber thread ...
1) Is it that Channel 9 is hopeless? In general?
No, they just follow the money. Whatever generates the most controversy, and hence, viewers, and hence, advertisers, brings in the cash. And that is definitely their bottom line.
Perhaps MediaWatch would be an appropriate channel to publicise 60 Minutes's mistakes.
I did find it amusing that the only person they asked to respond to Evans's claims was Kevin Rudd. I can't imagine it would have been hard for them to find an IPCC scientist to comment.
re: #30
OK, so who buys advertising for that show? Does anyone in Oz track that?
My hyperlinked dissection of the transcript is now up:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/20/spot-the-recycled-denial-ii-60-mi…
mugwump writes:
Can you explain why this one paper is right and these 61 papers are wrong?
Climate Sensitivity